Sponsored links

The radical notion that women are adults

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That

Kelsey McKinney has a post up at Vox exploring why the “Not All Men” meme has taken off as of late. Typically, she seems utterly unaware that “Not All Women” has been circulating for years, and the clever feminist interpretation is simply a rip-off of a man’s work. Le sigh.

Let’s explore a little history. Most of this is Kelsey’s writing – I’ve just fixed her pronouns to reflect NAWALT.

Over the past few weeks, the meme “not all women” — meant to satirize women who derail conversations about men’s rights by noting that “not all women” do X, Y, or Z sexist thing — has exploded in usage: But it would appear that not all women (and not all people generally) are fully caught up on the meme, where it comes from, and the point it’s getting across. Here’s a brief history of the term, and why it’s taken on such resonance lately.

1) What is a woman?

Might as well start here. A woman is an adult female of the species homo sapiens. To clarify, “adult” here does not mean someone who’s able to pay their own rent, or treat others with respect. Adult simply means that this female has gone through puberty and is no longer a girl.

Some additional notes about women:

A woman is someone who expects to be paid the same as a man for doing less work, less well.

A woman is someone who interrupts a man when he tries to discuss an issue that pertains to men and boys.

What’s that you say? Not ALL women expect to be paid the same as a man for doing less work, less well? Not ALL women interrupt men when they want to discuss issues that pertain to men and boys?

Thanks for pointing that out. You’re who this meme is about.

2) What is “Not all women”?

Let’s say a post is written on the internet about how women do not listen to men when they speak about issues that pertain to men and boys and interrupt them more often than they interrupt women speaking about issues that pertain to women and girls. At a blog or site of sufficient size, it’s practically inevitable that a commenter will reply, “Not all women interrupt.”

This phrase “Not all women” is a common rebuttal used (most often) by women in conversations about men and boys in order to exempt themselves from criticism of common female behaviors. Recently, the phrase has been reappropriated by men’s rights activists and turned into a meme meant to parody its pervasiveness and bad faith.

3) How did “Not all women” start?

The exact origins of “not all women” are muddy at best. “Not all women” may be a shortened version of “Not all women are like that” or NAWALT, which appears regularly on any sites devoted to exploring issues that affect men and boys from the perspective of …. men and boys.

4) What’s so bad about “Not All Women”?

When a woman (though, of course, not all women) butts into a conversation about a men’s issue to remind the speaker that “not all women” do something, they derail what could be a productive conversation. Instead of contributing to the dialogue, they become the center of it, excluding themselves from any responsibility or blame.

“Not all women.” Fine. But pointing out individual exceptions doesn’t help us understand or combat behaviors that really are mainly committed by women, from small things like interruptions up to domestic violence and rape. Not all women beat their partners, but people who beat their partners are mostly women. Pointing out that you’re not one of them doesn’t help us figure out how to understand and deal with that problem.

5) Wait. So how is “Not all women” different from “femsplaining”?

Femsplaining is a term used to describe an explanation that is given in a condescending, patronizing tone. Though a man could be guilty of femsplaining, the idea originated from women talking down to men in order to explain things, often things the men in question understand better than the femsplainer does. Amanda Marcotte is a good example of femsplaining.

The “not all women” interruption could be considered a subset of femsplaining, because it attempts to redirect a current conversation in a way that privileges women’s’ perspectives over men’s. Also, like femsplaining, it’s rude.

6) How does “Not All Women” fit into the history of men’s right’s activism?

“Not all women” is just the latest iteration in a long tradition of MRAs pointing out the ways in which language can be used by women to defend practices that benefit them and harm men. “In the best interests of children” is commonly used to deny men the right to shared custody, for example. The way we think and deal with gender gets expressed in language — and that includes, say, interrupting someone with a corrective “not all women.”

Some analysts, like Sara Mills, have drawn a distinction between two forms of sexist language: overt and indirect. Overt sexism is embodied in hate speech, when a person is actively trying to hurt someone because of their gender. Indirect sexism includes things like gender stereotypes, misandrist humor, and conversation diversion. Mills argues that overt sexism has been driven underground, only to create an environment where indirect sexism flourishes. And derailing tactics like “Not all women” are a prime example of indirectly sexist language.

7) So what can I do?

You can try not interrupting, because interrupting is rude, and use that time instead to think about whether or not injecting “not all women” is going to derail a productive conversation. You can start by recognizing that some conversations are truly not about women and participating in those conversations requires you to set your ego aside and consider the world from a perspective you may not be used to considering. You can contemplate the idea that women may in fact be the recipient of privileges that have come at the direct expense of men. You can acknowledge that there are some important rights and freedoms that men do not have and that there are responsibilities and obligations that apply only to men and not to women.

The MHRM is a place that welcomes all, so long as everyone understands that the discussion centers around the needs of men and boys, and that women will be criticized in ways that might make them uncomfortable. Responsibility, agency and culpability will be discussed. Women will be assumed adults capable of that conversation. And that might make some women feel a sad.

I never understood the problem people have with NAWALT until now. I’ve been guilty of it myself. I can look at it differently, knowing that these generalizations are not a personal attack against me; I know I’m awesome, so I don’t need to stop the flow of conversation pointing that out.

Same here. I really didn’t understand and have been guilty of it. Thank you for explaining it so well.

Magnus

I often try and avoid “Not all men are like that” when people make blanket statements about men. But I will argue against blanket statements that are wrong like:
“Men are the root of all evil”
“Men are violent”
“Teach men not to rape”

Because those ate factually untrue, but made true by the repeating of them, which brews male hate.

Once I had a person reply “Don’t take the statement so personally, just because you aren’t evil doesn’t mean men aren’t” 😛

So yeah it’s good to not take it personal, but instead argue the facts.

For me though, I simply didn’t agree that the generalizations being used against women during those discussions were widespread enough to be used as, well, generalizations…if that makes sense. And I’ve seen male commenters that LITERALLY thought that all women were like that when it comes to particular characteristics, and I didn’t agree with that.

But yeah, I realize that with some of the generalizations, there’s some merit to them. As you said, it’s not an attack against me, so why stop the flow of conversations. Besides, I don’t really comment on those types of boards/websites/etc. anymore.

I found this one very hard to read, I spent half the article wondering if you had picked the wrong article to mock. I kept trying to figure out what was additional material beyond switching gender pronouns (and mansplaning/femsplaning), which was making it such a bear to read. Then I clicked the link to the original article, and I have to apologize to you, the fault isn’t with your attempt to mock, but with the original writer being unworthy of the title “writer”. I can’t even comment on the content and point she was trying to make because the whole thing is barely understandable and poorly written. The only cogent sentence was “don’t be rude”, to which I say thanks I already know that. My response is don’t confuse legitimate criticism with rudeness, and way to miss the valid point that over-generalizing makes finding solutions impossible. If I were prone to use NALT arguments (which I actually hate), I would remind her that “I’ll” stop using NALT when she stops persecuting entire classes of people for the misdeeds of a subset.

On the topic of mansplaning does anyone else here have a really disproportionately strong response to its use or invocation? This is only the second place I’ve encountered the word, the first was on an atheism+ blog I was reading, in an article criticizing mansplaning. When it was explained to me what it was I became as irate as some of my old feminist friends would at the use of “feminazi”. The word rubs me worse then being called “faggot”, “gimp”, “retard” (my schoolmates were really mean to me as a kid), and just about any other “hate speech” I get on a regular basis.

C

I hate “mansplaining” too. I think it’s because it is basically used to tell men they have no right to an opinion, they cannot contribute to a conversation and they should stop getting all uppity and shut up.

The worst example I recall was an article on a feminist blog. She was super proud of herself for teaching her daughter to tell her son to “stop mansplaining” (her kids were under 10 years old iirc.) If her son doesn’t end up totally messed up I will be really surprised.

Magnus

Invent a buzzword.
Use Buzzword to silence opposition.
“win”

But really the only times I think I ever “mansplained” anything was to dumb bimbos that hardly knew her pen from her pencil.
I do though try and help people and tell them about cool solutions if I see them do something the hard way. If that’s “mansplaining” then I am only guilty of being nice 🙂

Yep, it’s absolutely a way of subverting the conversation and the entire idea of making generalizations about everything. If I said “When dogs bark in the middle of the night it’s annoying.” And someone were to immediately reply: “Not all dogs bark! That’s unfair to the Basenji, which does not bark.” That person would be missing the point of my statement entirely (and also an idiot). Likewise focusing on outliers is completely unproductive when discussing men and women. Are there mega obsessive career women who never want kids? Sure. Are the Autistic women with very little ability to read or respond to emotions? Yep, there are. Do either of those kinds of women in any way represent the majority of women? Heck no.

So why do people do this? In my experience largely it’s because they are one of those outliers (a girly man who doesn’t want to have to work hard or a career woman who wants to be a CEO before she’s 40) and they object to the entire idea of ‘men’ and ‘women’ having definable characteristics, because they don’t have those characteristics. Who says I can’t do X? By golly I sure will!

Of course outliers are by definition rare, but I think they drive this narrative forward. The rank and file then just regurgitate ad nauseum.

JShaft

There’s a reason us outliers pipe up at all, and it’s because it’s really shitty to be automatically discounted, like you don’t exist. I get that enough from Feminism, and so do you. Besides, outliers do horrible things like the best music and art, and if you could give a fuck about those things, well, outliers gave you physics, engineering, spaceships and beer. So yeah, a little acknowledgement from you bulk, undifferentiated medianites would be appreciated…

I’m short but no amount of whining about how short I am will fix my shortness. Nothing will. It just is. It would be incredibly stupid and selfish of me to campaign for a world where women are just as attracted to short guys as they are to tall ones, to shame women who profess a love of tall men.

When I was in grade school there was a nerdy girl with thick glasses and excellent math skills, she was tormented by her female peers just as severely as I was tormented by my peers for being different (a weirdo artsy guy). However it’s normal, even healthy, for the majority want to impose its will, its values on the outliers. To be angry at my bullies (which I was back then) was to lack understanding of this truth. Sadly I see so many these days endlessly lashing out at their childhood bullies, still children.

JShaft

Okay, ummm… I’m really not sure what to make of this. I’m not as ridiculously simplistic and reductionist as I see most Feminists seeming to be, so I won’t leap to any “Internalising your own oppressors” garbage, but, really? People were cruel, because of evolutionary imperatives that are no longer imperative, and in understanding that, it automatically makes that treatment okay? Ummm… I think you might want to look at all the possible logical (as opposed to overblown slippery slope arguments) extensions of that concept. It doesn’t strike me as something that can live in a vacuum, and it also strikes me as something that people end up fighting heroic wars against.

Maybe I’m some kind of girlyman, but I figure not being a complete cunt to people is sort of the whole deal really, from an ethics perspective. Telling teenagers they’re right to be the kinds of pricks they so often are, just because they so often are, well, I can see at least one logical extension of that rationale you really won’t like…

You really enjoy being patronizing don’t you. It’s not cute, just so you know. This is not TwoX on Reddit, you don’t get points for that here.

If you think ‘evolutionary imperatives’ are no longer in action you are a fool. Evolution is always happening and will continue to do so. And yes, that does make people’s evolved behavior natural. I don’t know what you mean by ‘okay’ I would guess that means ‘different from what I would like and so therefore I should shame them into being more like me’. Which is funny because it’s oddly exactly the same behavior you decry from the regular folks, only you do it with walls of text. Everyone has their chosen tribe. They have theirs, you have yours. I just piss everyone off, but I was born to do that too.

JShaft

Okay… Um…

Sorry, I was worried for a minute that your scary, Darwinian determinist viewpoint might be appealing enough to catch on, but it’s so batshit crazy and full of holes, all I can hope is your mob wear t-shirts, so I can steer clear of you.

In other news, this is one of the few places in the universe I’ve ever written publicly or posted anything. Never felt the need before… So, um… your argument over my style, which I think has far more to do with the fact that I’m a speaker, not a writer (and thus have no idea as yet how to appropriately convey tone) than your mentioning of websites I’ve never been to. All that did was make your one biting insult incomprehensible to me, but please, do try again. It’s interesting to watch your brain work…

It wasn’t an insult, merely an observation. I understand that you’re not interested in having a conversation or making an argument, that’s fine.You won’t get a rise out of me though. I’m not fun to troll.

JShaft

Oh, cool cool… One of those people that sees passionate disagreement as trolling. Fine, I’ll leave you be.

You’re completely and entirely missing the point. Until you can understand why you’re missing the point, might I suggest that you stop taking part in this discussion, because you’re kind of making yourself look like a fool.

Your call, of course.

JShaft

Sorry, took me a while to work this site out, so I’m still not 100% sure who this was directed at, and I’m not gonna respond and look like a tool if it wasn’t for me:/

JShaft

… And then I get the notification email *sigh*.

Two things: 1) Whatever gave you the idea that I was someone highly averse to looking foolish? Everyone I’ve ever known headdesked in unison when you posted that, hoping it would be an insult.

2) I can understand human psychology, some sciences, and the English language, and can also find my way around an argument on the interwebs, so I’m just wondering… If I’m completely failing to understand “the point” of this discussion, which inherently precludes me from having an opinion, what is it I’m missing?

Please, by all means, boil it down to the point where even a tiny-brained feminist could understand it, then my tiny IQ and complete inability to understand clear concepts might be able to wrap itself around it?

Here’s my dipshit understanding, please feel free to deconstruct it and point out where I’m wrong:

Feminists often say an acronym, NAWALT, usually but not always in response to a perceived generalisation. I know, a shock, an entire “gender-rights movement” is a bit sensitive to generalisations. News at 4.

Some people see this acronym as an intentionally timed attack, used to throw people off their game, like a feint or a well-timed takedown. This article seems to take the latter interpretation to be self evident, and ignores the possibility of the former.

My issue with that is, I think, and say, and get abused for saying “I’m not one of these men you’re talking about” to Feminists, when they start with the gross generalisations. It’s kinda how I ended up here.

So, from my tiny-brained perspective, what I’m hearing from people who want true legal equality is: It’s not okay when THEY do it.

Sorry, but not willing to give up the ability to call Feminists on their man-shaming derogatory attacks, especially not so that some people can’t hold their train of thought while arguing on twitter…

Okay, I clicked the wrong reply button on this one, now I can’t even find the post to which I meant to reply.

Forget about what I said above. It wasn’t intended for anyone in this particular conversation.

JShaft

Lol, now I feel like I missed the point when I gave you that serve :/

*manhugs* Let’s get back to smashing the state then…

APB

A woman is someone who expects to be paid the same as a man for doing less work, less well.
====

Truth.

I just got off of a three-week plant turnaround where another guy and I basically ran off a lazy chick in just a few days. The first night out with us, she thought she could get away with copying our inspection logs and then just walk off and socialize on her turn in the rotation all night long. We hid our logs from her and she started asking where they disappeared too. LOLZ. I knew she was trouble when she had to ask me (new to the job) what full face respirator pressure is on the masks the contractors use and made sure another guy went over to be sure she knew how to adjust a regulator. I doubt she did/does to this day, three weeks later.

Rather than get with the game, she decided to go and get caught by the boss trying to get ice cream during lunch on her walkthrough turn with a safety guy trying to hide her out–which led to the boss having to follow her around to make sure she was doing anything at all on her next turn. She thought that entitled her to have us cover for her and tell the boss that she had been doing her job, which she clearly wasn’t. No thanks, ma’am. Your lack of know-how not only could have gotten someone killed, but it made it VERY easy to lay you off that weekend.

I at least applaud the women who can pull holewatch/firewatch and blow and air horn when something goes wrong. Evidently, the ones who can’t climb stairs better than a guy with plantar fascitis and an upper respiratory infection, but want an equal hourly wage, need to have their heads checked.

JoWrites

This post hadn’t made my defences go up, because I knew what she was trying to do. But when I read the beginning of your post they jumped and seriously had to remind myself of the point. I had for a moment there thought that generalized all women just didn’t bother me, and that the post wouldn’t really work as intended. But no that wasn’t the case. It was just that knowing it was satire kept it from bothering me, and I kept thinking feminists instead of women.

Intended effect accomplished.

I also liked your story.

JBfan

It takes quite a stretch to make Pat Robertson right about something!

JShaft

Actually, I have to go there…

My GF will pull NAWALT out, but she’ll also pull out NAMALT, NAWPALT and just about any other, just because she loathes generalisations.

Me, my single biggest axe to grind with Feminism is their constant use of the blanket term “Men” when judging their oppressors. It grinds my gears like nothing else. Men rape! (but I don’t, but I should also shut up and not be offended when they say this. Also, I should stop countering with “So do Goldfish” because patriarchy.)

So, I sort of don’t give a fuck if they fall back on that, or even NAFALT, because, unfortunately, well, as much as it pains me to acknowledge, NAFALT.

Not all Gay men want anonymous sex, not all dogs lick their own arse, not all lesbians hate men and then go out of their way to look like them.

I agree.

So what I try to do, and I know this requires effort and forethought, so most people who’re big on arguing on the interwebz will probably not want to bother reading this part: I try to stick to either provable, decimal place-having statistics from reputable sources, or to not generalising. Shit, I’ve known guys who’re more obnoxious in traditionally “female” ways than any woman I ever met, and girls that broke their boyfriend’s jaw for whining about how she kept fucking all his friends. Not all anyones are like anything.

It’s hard, it’s annoying, and my GF drove me fucking mad with it, constantly interrupting every other sentence with it. But… I found this ONLY happened when I said sweeping generalisations about genders, socioeconomic groups etc…

Now I have a preface that’s a wordsentence, that comes out thusly: I’msuingthisstereotype/blankettermasakindofgeneralisationandshortcutandinnowayamtryingtosuggestthatthewholegroupisthis, but (insert statement here)…

It costs me a breath… Might be a cunt to type on twitter, but abbreviated appropriately… Well…

It invalidates their invalidation before they make it, and that usually shuts nearly everyone up when they know they’re about to publicly talk out their arse…

Dear JB: Again, thank you so much for your great mind steered by your great heart. 🙂 One suggestion, that you replace the gender-designated, “patronizing” (or anything similar) to the replacement, “condescending.” I (really) trust that given your heart and mind, you will make the adjustment as I know Erin Pizzey had done in her work, “Prone to Violence” (in which she designed a discourse which an exercise of her HUMILITY, great mind and great heart). Again, thank you, big time, JB. Rah, rah, rah. Three cheers for JB! Another male admirer, Mark Waldie, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 🙂

Spaniard

Todas putas.

Nicky

What is needed is more understanding of the usually unspoken phrase ‘tend to’. If you can’t insert ‘tend to’ in your sentence, you are making an unfair generalisation and NA?ALT is a totally appropriate reply. eg. ‘Men are rapists’ is not derailed by NAMALT, as men do not TEND to be rapists. ‘Women are gold digging sluts’ – fair enough to say NAWALT to this one, However, if you CAN put in ‘tend to’ it’s really ok to make the generalisation. ‘Men (tend to be/) are physically stronger than women’ or ‘women (tend to) get custody of the children’ ‘feminists (tend to) put helping women ahead of equality’. Anyone saying NAM/NAW/NAF to these statements IS derailing.

‘Tend to’ acknowledges the outliers exist, and that they aren’t really relevant to the point in two short words. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

JShaft

The great thing about what you’re saying is that you’ve taken what takes me forever to get across and put it into just two words, and six characters all told…

So, why not just say them? Would six characters kill you on twitter? If it cuts off really annoying behavior, or shows it to be pedantic misdirection, then, I dunno, maybe use it?

If someone keeps dropping their left in the ring, don’t whine about it. Also, if you happen to have a good overhand right, why are you mentioning it to us, rather than using it?

Nicky

Precisely my point – I try to do so. I’m mentioning it so others can do so too – and so you now have 6 letters to type instead of 116ish (I may have miscounted!) But it’s usually SO obvious (IMO) that these things *are* generalisations that I find it hard to believe that NAALTers think they have to point out the exceptions – therefore it’s derailing (though to respond to NAALT by repeating your statement with that implied ‘tend to’ inserted SHOULD work to get the conversation back on track.)

TBH, I think the problem really comes when there is disagreement about whether ‘tend to’ applies or not. As when feminists argue NAFALT – they believe that *most* feminists aren’t like that; or we argue NAMALT, when they genuinely think it’s an apt generalisation when they characterise masculinity as intrinsically bad/violent/rapey.

JShaft

All very interesting hypotheses, but they’re untestable without better mindreading equipment. My counterexample: My girlfriend (and babymomma :p). My girlfriend has a personal loathing of sweeping generalisations (lucky for me that feminism doesn’t get a free pass), and almost can’t/won’t stop herself from pointing them out as such. At first, I found this frustrating and derailing… Over time, I’ve learned it’s just a reflex for her, so she can confirm that she’s on the same page with the speaker. Also, she can communicate her unwillingness to be subjected to any sort of discussion based purely on sweeping generalisations presented as fact (and we’ve all met those people, right? Annoying, the lot of them! :p).

One trap humans fall into more often than not is in ascribing seemingly logical motives to the behaviors of others. Here’s a kicker for you: Current best practice tells psychologists not to do that. That’s right, those with all the actual experimental data that holds up to scientific scrutiny don’t trust themselves to ascribe motive to behavior.

Why? Simple. Humans aren’t even mostly logical half of the time. We really are better off describing somebody’s behavior two ways. One, exactly what happened, police report or scientific paper style. No conjecture, no presumption, no “the only reason to X is Y” stuff. In these cases, it’s come down to “She then said NAWALT”. The other thing you can describe is the effect, and only then in either the same language, or, if you were directly affected, what effect this had on you.

In the end, someone elses motivations are irrelevant. Only those two facts are provable and/or truly understandable in and of yourself. From that position, only one of them is something you have direct control over. Now your choice is this: Is it a better use of my time and energy to demand somebody change their behavior because of it’s effect on me, or should I focus on changing my own behavior to limit their impact on me.

This is how we beat them, we don’t cry rape and demand our right to wear hotpants and drink heavily, no. We sober up, wear comfortable pants and poke them in the eye if they get to close.

You got us most of the way there, I’m just hoping I can help us over that line…

Thanks for the points. I would point out that the NAWALT response is typical of the feminist (more women are feminist than admit it, of course) constitutes an application of INDIVIDUATION of a collective whose sister phenomenon is the COLLECTIVIZATION of an individuation.

For example, as concerning, “hate crimes” (real and/or fake), a member of a group who wants to NAWALTize the response will say, “I wasn’t even there.” But the whole concept of hate crime is categorical, so dominant trend within a group is what counts. But if an offence is against an INDIVIDUAL member of the said group (on whatever racial, religious and/or other basis), the same people can be found to respond claiming that any offence against such individuals is COLLECTIVE. The offence is as such, “AWALTized.” As such, CATEGORICALLY, members of any said group are persons by way of rights and privileges but not by way of pains nor penalties (nor accountability); and individually, members of any such group are persons by way of rights and privileges but not by way of pains nor penalties. As such, “You can have your cake and eat it, too.” is in evidence. Categories are individuated and individuals are categorized.

This is why we virtually and normally never hear the CATEGORICAL term, “gunWOMAN.” But, of course, we never hear the end of the term, “gunMAN.” And, we do hear and/or perceive the concept of the CATEGORICAL referencing to the concept of the white man as the lyncher (but never the white woman, black woman, etc.) and the standard commentary ignores the fact that in Canada (and other jurisdictions) that the WHITE MAN is the overwhelming group to suffer armed-service injury and death. The response to such by way of Affirmative Action and insensitivity training is HARM THE WHITE; HARM THE MAN. The right to harm is assigned to the colored and the woman (even though armed service is EVIDENTLY a virtual synonym for VIOLENCE AGAINST THE WHITE MAN.

As per gender, the use of the term, “woman” IS CATEGORICAL. So, for example, by way of Affirmative Action, the address of governments around the world to issues of gender and armed service is ALWAYS, “ADVANCE WOMEN.” As such, CATEGORICALLY, “ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT.”

To argue for any right, any freedom, in fact anything is to argue for life itself: to argue the whole is to argue the parts (e.g., if one argues cake, then necessarily one argues flour, sugar, butter, milk, baking soda, etc…). The flour of every bread, every cake, every right, every freedom, everything IS LIFE ITSELF. So, to speak in favor of ANYTHING is to argue life itself (the locus of male disadvantage/female privilege).

The wave of feminine rights to vote was on the conclusion of the up-to-then largest war of all history, WWI, the holocaust of MEN. As such, the response to the HOLOCAUST OF MEN being, “Advance women” is utterly uncivilized, insensitive and brutish. And such is government was policy around the world. The response to an against-government-policy of killing women (Marc Lepine 1989 Montreal, proverbial example) is advance women. The morally unintelligent orientation to gender is in evidence.

One should not extend rights unrestrained by responsibilities such as the granting to women the right to vote unrestrained by the responsibility to vote, such as the responsibility to go to war in the traumatic functions such as at the front lines…

In all cases, “WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT, CATEGORICALLY.” “Women can play with their toys, but they don’t have to put them away.” But for men, “Men can’t play with their toys, but they have to put them away.” Divorce is of the same type. Women are divorced from responsibility but remained married to rights (children, money, right to accuse men and have the police, etc. as agents of their domestic violence against men). Whereas men are divorced from rights (children, sex, house cleaning…) but remain married to responsibilities (pay women’s bills…).

Legislatures, parliaments, congresses, city halls, etc. are overwhelmed by women who push for and achieve such orientations to gender particularized many ways.

NAWALT is meant to A) Make you look stupid B) Frustrate C) Dehumanize you D) Spite you E) Derail. That’s how 98% of all AMERICAN women argue.. not ‘all.’ It’s really an extremely infantile response like something a catty 9 year old would say.

If someone said, “All people enjoy eating in restaurants,” some bozo or child would prob respond with “You can’t say ALL people like to eat in restaurants,” real snotty & catty. Well, yes, technically there’s bound to be someone out there who doesn’t like to eat in restaurants, but it’s such an extremely microscopic number that it doesn’t even matter.

See, what we’re really talking about is the CULTURE. In Western Culture people like to eat in restaurants and in our CULTURE the very SET UP ITSELF is women marrying men/divorcing them/telling them they are unnecessary as fathers/taking full advantage and wiping them out financially using the courts that are SET UP to do exactly that. It’s in your face all around you everyday in the news in magazines and movies – our CULTURE.

AND ironically it is actually WOMEN who tend to be far, FAR more ‘herd-like’ and conformist, needing to conform with whatever is ‘in’ like they need oxygen. It is actually MEN who tend to be the rugged individualists there are in the world.

I would suggest using these comebacks- I’ve figured out over the years- I do all of the time:

1. All of our CULTURE is ‘like that’

2. All of the LAWS are ‘like that’

3. How am I supposed to tell?

4. Oh, I see- so how many women have you been married to, to be such an expert on how women are in a relationship? (when it’s a woman)

5. When women have God-like legal power over me to destroy me and my entire life, I can’t take that risk that she MIGHT not be ‘like that.’ Would YOU take that risk if you had no rights at all like men don’t?

6. You don’t really ever ‘know’ a woman until you’re sitting across from her in court- quoting a famous author.

7. I’m just supposed to TRUST she’s not ‘like that’ just because she says so? That’s why I need insurance in the form of RIGHTS which you have and I don’t, just like I need insurance for everything else. Because I have no way of knowing when an accident is going to happen.

8. When I see every man I know and every man I am related to being ripped off by women and stabbed in the back, it sure DOES look like every woman is ‘like that.’

9. OK, then 70%, because that is the percentage of women who initiate divorce for frivolous reasons

10. I don’t have the luxury of risking everything I’ve worked for even a second time, much less 3, 4, 5, 10 times hoping that the next one might not be like that, because the last 2, 3 and 4 WERE ‘like that’- do YOU have that much money, time and mental stability to withstand emotional devastation? Because I DON’T.

11. Women aren’t exactly ‘world famous’ for letting their intentions known up front and are MASTERS of illusion and manipulation, that is why virtually every man always thinks his wife wasn’t ‘like that’ when he married her- then ended up ripped off and backstabbed just like every other man.

JShaft

I both feel for your pain, and want to point out to everyone that not all men feel like this :p

Grew up surrounded by women, most of whom would probably fit your model of “90%” of women. My own Mum was one. I feel fro all the pain they may have caused you.

The thing is, I don’t see much need to bring gender into their behavior. The sooner in a conversation or an argument you can separate fuckheads from women, the better off you’ll be.

Here: Not everyone is a fuckhead. Some women are fuckheads. Some men are fuckheads. There is almost nothing we can do to reduce the number of fuckheads on Earth, as they can be hard to spot sometimes. So, having laws, any laws, that are easily exploited by fuckheads to punish and humiliate the people they’re already being fuckheads to is wrong. Agreed?

The problem we face at the moment is there are too many fuckhead-friendly laws around. Worse, there are some that disproportionately allow female fuckheads to abuse men. Some of these laws are well intentioned but misguided attempts to protect women from fuckheaded guys.

So, there are some anti-fuckhead laws right now that actually cause more joy for fuckheads than they inhibit harm from same. These laws need to be addressed, and the harm they caused redressed.

“Not everyone is a fuckhead. Some women are fuckheads. Some men are fuckheads.” I would avoid using this line because it’s virtually as insulting to one’s intelligence as NAWALT. Yes, but you did go on to state that it is far more complex than that because of the LAWS and our CULTURE and society.

Yes, men and women both are capable of horrendous acts, but women are UNACCOUNTABLE to anyone, while men are held accountable for everything. A man commits adultery, he is going to pay and he is going pay and pay and pay and pay. If a woman commits adultery she just hit the lottery because when her husband finds out and leaves her, she will get everything in the divorce because of no-fault divorce and of course everyone now knows that pre-nups are completely obsolete and useless.

So now we have had an entire generation of women now raised in this toxic legal nightmare where they are never held accountable and bad behavior is rewarded with a new generation of girls being raised in this shit who will be even MORE nightmarish. This society and it’s education, laws and culture therefore have transformed women into monsters while men more or less have maintained their morality and ability to tell right from wrong.

Women in the U.S. have now become something I wouldn’t necessarily consider even human anymore. Any interaction with them is not going to lead to anything good for either you or her ironically. Look at every U.S. female you meet – there is no future with her.

She will leave you in 8 years if she marries you at all (half of all mothers today have no intention of even having a father around in the first place so they can live like road whores) and because of abortion and Feminism, white U.S. women are not even reproducing at replaceable rates, so she is not surprisingly also a genetic dead end- it’s already too late- because of her, whites will be extinct in the next 100 years. So you’re looking at the ULTIMATE human fail. A genetic dead end. Any race and gender that is actually stupid enough to extinct themselves through some ridiculous ruse like Feminism like white American women actually needs to go extinct.

And she is blissfully unaware of any of it, just one more aspect of her uselessness to even herself. And even if she was informed of all of this, she wouldn’t even care, so completely superficial and completely self centered. And is far, far too stupid to understand the irony of it all.

You’re correct when you say that gender isn’t relevant in the sense that if men and boys were never held accountable and rewarded for evil, they too would have become just as monstrous and repulsive as human beings.

JShaft

Basically, every time you say “Most X are (insert judgment)” you’re potentially offending lots of people… Sure, I’ll grant you that all the women who’ve ever wronged you have been fuckheads, but shit, even if you’re as much of a manwhore as I used to be, that’s still a really small fucking sample size for a study.

If a Feminist said “All the 5 guys I’ve dated hit me, ergo all men are pigs” (as enough must, I imagine) we’d have a fucking field day with that bullshit logic. For starters, pick better boyfriends, or stop being such a cunt to them, or any number of equally appropriate challenges would ensue, and rightfully so, because that assertion on it’s own is bullshit. It’s not an even vaguely representative sample size, and the selection criteria are laughable.

So too is anyone’s personal experience. Mine included, and having been one of those mentally ill homeless ex-con bad boys that actually asked women for sex, I have what could be best described as “a significantly less statistically irrelevant sample size” to work with.

So, these 90% of women in America you’re declaring to be inhuman… Just how many of them have you met? Are they the type of cunts who’d dare hate you or denigrate you just for being male, or deny you employment? Bet they are. Way to show ’em up buddy, by being a shining beacon of reasonableness. So long as your voice is tolerated in the MHRM sphere, I can’t and won’t consider myself a member.

Seriously, fighting hatespeech with hatespeech, pain with pain, anger with anger? All you sound like to me right now is a Feminist with their rhetoric genderswapped.

Sorry to be so rude, but if we’re gonna give Feminism shit for not publicly distancing themselves from shit like the SCUM manifesto and blatant hatespeech, how am I going to not feel like a hypocrite if I just ignore your bile?

Thanks to you and those like you, if I ever did identify as a MHRM guy, I’d have to spend half my fucking time posting NAMHRMGALT, and I can’t even fucking pronounce that out loud. Fucks sake! *tears at hair*.

Well said. NAWALT is a way to derail a good conversation, I agree, and it’s irrelevant to most discussions, similar to complaining about neighborhood dogs barkingand having someone say “well, not ALL dogs bark!”, but the fact is that it is true: Not ALL Women Are Like that.

It’s been my sincere belief for quite a few years that a very large majority of the manosphere are made up of men who are just horrible at picking their women. Many of them took the blue pill, as they put it, and had horrible success with women, so then they took the red pill and stopped messing around with women at all.

The fact is, most of them talk about red pill, blue pill, and say “when I took the red pill, I stopped messing around with women.”

It never occurs to a good portion of them that when you take the red pill, it opens up an entire world of possibility, including using what you now know and have learned to find a woman who isn’t a total fuckhead, as you so eloquently put it.

I know they exist. I’ve been married to one for 15 years.

Not all women are like that. But the fact is, it doesn’t matter. NAWALT is used as a way to derail conversations in an annoying and stupid manner, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

Jim

“The thing is, I don’t see much need to bring gender into their behavior.”

Then you’re still blind.

JShaft

No, I’m just someone who is still pissed off daily whenever Feminists make blanket statements about men that don’t even vaguely apply to me, and then defend offending me by talking about how “most men” do X, so it’s still valid.

I could give a flying fuck if 90% of all the Jews in Germany in ’38 were as bad or worse as the propaganda stated, because my grandma wasn’t like that, and still nearly died in the ovens. I’m not a fan of collateral damage, and don’t think it ever helps a cause. If I’m dying of cancer, don’t give me chemo, if I’m gonna die I wanna feel as well as I can on my way. Can you feel me now?

So, um… yeah…

The fact that one gender is currently in a position do do more bullshit things is the issue, not the gender itself. Gender does come into it, but no further than that I’m afraid.

Generalization is a bad deal. Fuckheads are fuckheads. The only time I bring gender into it is when discussing the fact that women have special powers that allow them to be fuckheads in different ways than men, and that we need to do something about that.

Don’t think gender is irrelevant to the discussion, for that reason alone.

JShaft

Okay, I see that I should clarify my position on this, my bad…

When I say gender is irrelevant, I mean… As opposed to gender biased laws? Gender bias in culture?

Or, to put it another way, I don’t see Black perpetrators, just perpetrators who happen to be Black.

I don’t think the end results of having the laws favor men over women would make us look all that great either, so I’d rather focus on the laws, and leave judgments of half the global population to those comfortable with pissing off half the worlds’ population just to make a point a little easier to say without thinking.

Yeah, I know, PC gone mad, eh? Not telling you how to conduct yourself though, just telling you how I choose to conduct myself in a civil society. I freely admit I piss a lot of people off, however… Thing is, I only do it when they’ve already made the selection criteria by choice, not by accident of birth.

TL;DR: I hate Feminists lumping me in with their “Men are like…” statements, so I can see the logic in not employing them in the first place. If your audience is always heckling you about the tie, maybe it’s wiser to just lose the fucking tie…

Vincent J Miro

I think you might enjoy this website

Enviado desde mi iPhone

El 20/05/2014, a las 17:53, judgybitch escribió:

> >

Jim

“A woman is an adult female of the species homo sapiens. To clarify, “adult” here does not mean someone who’s able to pay their own rent, or treat others with respect. Adult simply means that this female has gone through puberty and is no longer a girl.”

True. About 95% of them don’t seem to mentally or emotionally develop beyond 15 though.

JShaft

I fell into this kind of trap for most of my adult life. “Why are all my girlfriends fucking crazy?”

Turns out, the moment I decided that maybe I had some responsibility and agency in and around who I chose to partner up with, and decided to stop going out with anyone who seemed like “my type”, I discovered a valuable lesson: We were right! Girls who complain that all their boyfriends beat them do so because *drumroll* they’re attracted to the kind of guy that also happens to hit their partners! That’s not victim shaming BTW ladies *they’re ALWAYS watching us :P*, no, victim shaming would have less words. Victim shaming would be to suggest that they’re attracted to getting beaten, and that’s unlikely to be true across the board. But they are attracted to bad, dangerous, emotionally-volatile, dark, brooding types, and what you’ll find in any population group with poor impulse control is…?

So, being armed with this little gem, I went through my list in my head, looking for common threads for me (personally) to avoid.

1) Girls who ask if you think they look pretty. If their self worth is predicated purely on their appearance, then they never bothered to develop a personality. Why would you when pretty gets you drinks and praise from dawn till dawn?

2) Girls who like to win arguments, as opposed to being right. Do I need to say more here?

So, long story short, I went through this list with a friend. I also went through the other list, of what changes I’d have to make to be attractive/worthwhile to the kind of partner I did like…

Now I have a three-year old kid… with that same friend, who isn’t argumentative, is pretty but that’s as ephemeral to her as it is to me, is kind, generous, intelligent, logical, in control of her emotions, and an equal partner on our ride into the future.

Oh, and she’s personally anti-marriage. She says “Relationship breakups can be hard enough without lawyers involved.”

All I had to do to get to here from a lifetime of really obnoxious female partners was this: Open my eyes. NOWALT, just the ones you look for are :p

Yes. As I’ve said before, I think the MHRM is chock full of men who are horrible at choosing women, and instead of looking inward, blame women for that.

Not all. And I’m not saying the MHRM isn’t a necessary thing to right some massive societal wrongs that we’re dealing with right now. It’s just that the widespread woman-hating part of it is sort of off=putting to guys like me that know this “all women are horrible apportunistic, solipsistic hags” thing is total BS.

I rant against feminists. Not women. I typically make it very clear in my comments that htis is the case, and instead of “women” I ususally specifically say “feminists”. Two very different things.

The problem with the way women use NAWALT is the way they do in such an extremely dishonest way. For example when you’re trying to explain to them the LAWS that put all men (and boys) in the cross hairs of any female at any time for false accusations, divorce out of nowhere and being falsely accused of DV and never seeing your children again and on and on- the ease with which men can be thrown in jail and bankrupted with the divorce court set up to be the very instrument to rip off men with a pointed finger, giving women God like power over men, women will respond to all of this with..

“Not all women are like that.”

I told a female who told me that in response to my explaining the divorce laws, VAWA and rape shield laws to her was like this..

Imagine if RAPE were made legal- which is not that far fetched with it being legal in some countries. Well, women would be going insane everyday, complaining to every man they met saying, “we’ve got to do something about this, we have change this law- this is insane!” And then the men would just smugly respond, “Hey, not all men are like that.”

NAWALT is meant to A) Make you look stupid B) Frustrate C) Dehumanize you D) Spite you E) Derail. That’s how 98% of all AMERICAN women argue.. not ‘all.’ It’s really an extremely infantile response like something a catty 9 year old would say.

If someone said, “All people enjoy eating in restaurants,” some bozo or child would prob respond with “You can’t say ALL people like to eat in restaurants,” real snotty & catty. Well, yes, technically there’s bound to be someone out there who doesn’t like to eat in restaurants, but it’s such an extremely microscopic number that it doesn’t even matter.

See, what we’re really talking about is the CULTURE. In Western Culture people like to eat in restaurants and in our CULTURE the very SET UP ITSELF is women marrying men/divorcing them/telling them they are unnecessary as fathers/taking full advantage and wiping them out financially using the courts that are SET UP to do exactly that. It’s in your face all around you everyday in the news in magazines and movies – our CULTURE.

AND ironically it is actually WOMEN who tend to be far, FAR more ‘herd-like’ and conformist, needing to conform with whatever is ‘in’ like they need oxygen. It is actually MEN who tend to be the rugged individualists there are in the world.

I would suggest using these comebacks- I’ve figured out over the years- I do all of the time:

1. All of our CULTURE is ‘like that’

2. All of the LAWS are ‘like that’

3. How am I supposed to tell?

4. Oh, I see- so how many women have you been married to, to be such an expert on how women are in a relationship? (when it’s a woman)

5. When women have God-like legal power over me to destroy me and my entire life, I can’t take that risk that she MIGHT not be ‘like that.’ Would YOU take that risk if you had no rights at all like men don’t?

6. You don’t really ever ‘know’ a woman until you’re sitting across from her in court- quoting a famous author.

7. I’m just supposed to TRUST she’s not ‘like that’ just because she says so? That’s why I need insurance in the form of RIGHTS which you have and I don’t, just like I need insurance for everything else. Because I have no way of knowing when an accident is going to happen.

8. When I see every man I know and every man I am related to being ripped off by women and stabbed in the back, it sure DOES look like every woman is ‘like that.’

9. OK, then 70%, because that is the percentage of women who initiate divorce for frivolous reasons

10. I don’t have the luxury of risking everything I’ve worked for even a second time, much less 3, 4, 5, 10 times hoping that the next one might not be like that, because the last 2, 3 and 4 WERE ‘like that’- do YOU have that much money, time and mental stability to withstand emotional devastation? Because I DON’T.

11. Women aren’t exactly ‘world famous’ for letting their intentions known up front and are MASTERS of illusion and manipulation, that is why virtually every man always thinks his wife wasn’t ‘like that’ when he married her- then ended up ripped off and backstabbed just like every other man.

Mark Waldie

Dear All: Below is a response to a JB post. It contains reflection-worthy responses to Feminist slogans. FYI. Mark

I really don’t think women in the U.S. have caught on yet- they really don’t get it- I can tell when I talk to them that most of them are still operating under the old social system of Man Chases Girl/Girl Runs/ Rejects or Accepts/Passes Judgement. That ended somewhere back there around 2007 or so.

I’m not saying that there still aren’t men chasing after women, but most of the men who still are, are the scumbags of society. Felons, the unemployed, losers, alcoholics, drug addicts, registered sex offenders, the mentally ill, etc. Thus the ‘bad boy’ dove tails nicely in there for women… now they have an excuse, or should I say, no choice.

Because if you are a female in your late 20s looking to now ‘settle down,’ with a guy who earns enough with his own business, etc., so you can sit at home and have babies, you’re in for a big surprise. I’m in that demographic and I won’t even DATE. And there are now millions of men like me and new additions everyday. And in fact I don’t even HIRE women anymore.

I barely ever even speak to women anymore in real life. I don’t want a STD infested road whore who’s had 57 cocks spray in her since age 12 who is going to dump me and wipe me out in 8 years anyway when she gets bored and ‘needs to go find herself’ all at my expense of course. Then be saddled with huge child support payments each month and if I hit a financial lull, I go to jail.

FUCK. THAT. I try to explain all of this to women and they don’t even understand any of it and have no idea what is even going on. Just incredible- and we’re told that women are so much more intelligent and emphatic- no, just the complete opposite. We think NOTHING alike and have nothing in common – nothing to even talk about at all.

JShaft

Well, I’m sure if you just cut and pasted this into a dating website as your profile info, I’m sure you’ll find the right woman for you…

Go to back to Hell. Do you go to MADD meetings and mock parents who have lost children to drunk drivers too? I hope you die of cancer.

JShaft

No, but I did used to go up to neo-nazi skinheads and question their ethics, and then, while they beat me half to death, ask them if they’re hitting me because of my politics, or because I’m Jewish.

I’m not belittling your pain mate, just pointing out that it’s massively counterproductive to any sort of political progress. You sound like Dworkin with a cock.

If I were ranting like you online, it’s be in a rape/abuse survivor forum, and a private one at that. I seriously hope you recover one day, and wish you all the best.

I’m kind of really interested in actively working to redress all of the legal and cultural issues you bring up, but currently I’m finding it really hard to see just how I could. On the one hand, I’ll have feminists in front of me screaming “MISOGYNY!” and behind me I’ll have you ranting about the evils of all women, cuz 90% of them be bitchez?

Fuck that. You and your types have two choices: Give up sounding like feminists with dicks in public, or lose everyone who doesn’t. It’s impossible to argue that Feminism = hate because they don’t denounce the haters, and then ignore what you’re saying, or try to explain it away.

In another place, with another, more specific purpose, I’d wanna give you manhugs, listen to your pain, and the hate that comes with it, then take you out and buy you beers afterwards, because we’re all brothers (and sisters) in a harsh, divided world, and we should do what we can for each other.

But if you want the circumstances and system that abused you to change, you might have to stop screaming at the evils of women. If you get into the octagon and get kicked in the nuts, you cannot win by kicking the other guy in the nuts more. What you can do is either earn yourself a DQ, or suck it up, acknowledge that you just got kicked in the nuts, and tighten up your game.

Hate me for being a harsh coach all you want. Keep ranting all you want. But I kinda know what sort of fight we’re in, and it’s one where it’ll come down to the judges, and every point you cost us is one we fucking need.

You starting to get me now?

JShaft

Sorry for getting angry with people btw, maybe my viewpoint on this and other issues is different to everyone elses, so allow me to explain:

I hate, and I do mean hate Feminism for many wondrous reasons. One of the biggest is the whole “victim mentality” thing. As someone who lived most of their life there (don’t run, I got better), I have a special dislike of it. It’s understandable, it’s painful, and fucked things did happen to you, unfairly and unjustly. But… The worst thing about it is it does nothing to help you, and everything to hinder any kind of real progress. For starters no change changes how you feel. You identify an evil and redress it, and what’s the next thing you see? The only thing you’ve practiced seeing – more evil. No time to celebrate, you’ve just hit level two.

Because of this, because the foundations of Feminism are littered with the rantings of people with PTSD rather than perfectly rational though processes, Feminism has no exit strategy. Hence the vast overreach evident in modernity. Got the vote? NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Maternity leave? STILL MONSTERS! Etc. etc.

Me, I’ve been there, like right the fuck in that shit. It’s like quicksand made of turds, and you just keep struggling. The hate and hurt fuels you, and drives you to find more to hate and be hurt by. Shit, I’m probably doing it now just thinking about Feminism to be honest.

In any case, my point is: Feminism poisoned it’s own foundations, and did and does nothing to fix or rebuild them. We’re still building our foundations. We’re in the perfect place to do exactly the thing we demand they do, and deride them for not doing… So, ummm… How about we fucking do it?

What would it cost Feminism to school the nutjobs it cuddles up to? A few supporters for a shred of credibility? Meanwhile while we remain a safe haven for the embittered rantings of those who were done wrong by women, and now think 90% of them are evil, aren’t we just giving them quotes to mine, and our own Dworkins to shame us with?

How about we police ourselves a little better than that, and smarter too, by keeping everyone who wants in, but respectfully insisting they keep delusional, anally-derived statistics and presumptions of collective evil/guilt out of it?

Seriously, I’ve spent about a month reading about all this stuff. The main difference between the Feminism I had fed to me along with breatmilk, and the stuff the MHRM generally has to say is *drumroll* ours is based on a factual, clinical and scientific interpretation of observable, statistically viable, scientifically verifiable observation of reality, rather than the subjective ramblings of understandable bitter, angry, confused abuse victims.

Could we maybe try to keep it that way? I don’t respect Feminism, because it calls listening to and publicly validating the rage-soaked rantings of those abused to the point of clear and measurable mental illness “Giving a voice to victims”. Now, as a really wordy person who loves to talk, and as a (former) victim of profound abuses (not gonna start listing them, but seriously, movies-of-the-week, every week for a decade and you’ll be getting the idea), I can honestly tell you: Apart from the first sentence, where I explained the basic facts of what had happened to me, nothing I had to say as a victim was constructive, logical, or a sound basis for fucking anything, other than (possibly) as a call to arms for violent, genocidal revenge.

TL;DR Giving a free pass to hatespeech under the guise of “Giving victims a voice” is just wrong. Give victims a private space to discuss these things, and all the validation they need within that space. But make it private, and separate it from political discourse. No-one who has recovered from victimhood needs know that what they said while they were there is online for all of history to judge. Also, for every recruit you earn who’ll spout hate, you may find yourselves losing five who are reasonable.

Well there goes my ego… I’ve been arguing without much success on the atheist blogs I read, most of what you just said, for the last several days. Unfortunately I never said anything as brilliantly eloquent as what you just did, I am not sure it would have helped in the end, but what you said was awesome!

JShaft

And again, aw shucks, but moreso!

Where are these atheist blogs you speak of? I might come along and babble at them too…

JB, I just want to say thank you. I am a stay at home wife/mom of two boys and lately I have been inundated with so much hatred of men (it’s not misandry though, that can’t exist – cue obvious sarcastic tone) that I get so overwhelmed and saddened for the world I have to prepare my boys for. It’s really nice to have a blog like yours and other places where I can visit and realize that I am not that last sane woman on the planet. So again, thank you for that.

I don’t mind generalizations. What I mind is the generalizations about women that are supposed to be bad such as ‘women only care about money.’ What’s wrong with liking money? It makes the world of around . Got off topic but just wanted to add that in. Anyways, I’ve never used that phrase because it isn’t up to me to prove to men I’m different from those other girls. If a man would try to differentiate himself from the typical man, then he is a self hating mangina. It’s not up to black people to prove racists wrong but in America, racism still rules the land. Similarly, women have to prove themselves to men because they still rule the world.

Michael Johns II

I seem to not have a home due to child support. I sure wish there was a way to fix a broken system. I was married nine years she fell in love with a man at work I first got custody. Court system made me broke and bankrupt took my kids and gave her custody. Lost everything including time with my kids. All for absolutely no reason on my part. So I lost everything for being a good faithful man and all because she found another man, me and my kids have suffered. Something is seriously wrong with this system. So now I have to go to stores to spend time with my kids during the week because I love them and want to spend time with them. Actually homeless and on weekends drive over an hour and a half away to stay with family while they get $568.19 every two weeks which equals $1231.08 a month over two years now and got charged $8000 in back support for no reason. They have new mansion new cars and make over six figures and i suffer and i was the faithful husband and father. Her husband got rid of his own kids and she got rid of one of her own and he even threatens me how is gonna enjoy taking care of my kids. Again this is so messed up beyond belief. I sure wish someone could help me I even served my country for 10 years and became homeless because a woman could not keep her legs closed. It’s so crazy. I can’t believe Americans go through this and there is nothing anyone can do to fix it. I wish someone could make this right for me!

I do have a solution since I don’t want to leave my last complaint of how I and all the the other Americans getting screwed over by the domestic court system left open ended with a better way or a fair way.

If a person who gets remarried, you count their spouses income too or even better if a person has more kids and they are not yours you get to drop off paying for one of your kids in child support. This would eliminate people just marrying and having kids to get a man or woman’s money. Which happens so much. These are just ideas on how to fix a very broken domestic court system. Of making one parent rich and another parent homeless like in my case. These might not be the best solutions but something has to change so no other Americans become homeless due to child support when the other parents family makes over six figures a year. All I wanted was shared parenting and no one pays anything and split bills 50/50. Of course that was too simple I guess they had to make me suffer for no fault of mine. Yes I know everyone in the system says it doesn’t matter but it matters to me when my dream was to have a family and kids of my own and I became broke, bankrupt, and homeless because she fell in love with a man at work. Not my fault. I just want my money back and my kids back to live the American dream and move forward. I sure wish someone could help me!